Advice on calorie burns

karenrich77

Hi all,

I am 293 days into my weight loss journey and 73 pounds down so far.

I have a vivofit which I use purely to count steps. I am walking for 100 mins every day (on the flat due to a health issue. But getting in about 7-8kms depending on how I feel. The vivofit says I am burning 315 cals for this, however when I type the same walk into calorie burning websites with my height and weight it says around 600 cals burned. I am 135kg (297 pounds) still so I would hope I was burning a little more than 315 for 100 mins! but maybe not

I do not use the MFP exercise part as it grossly overestimates as we all know, without a heart rate monitor, should I just divvie down the middle and record around 480?

I am currently trying to kick start again after going up and down by a kilo for the last 8 weeks so am not eating my exercise calories back for 1 week (I'm starving lol) but want to record it anyway.

Soooooo in short, suggestions over how to record the burn?

brianpperkins

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

.3 calories per pound per mile .... so in the 300s net calories burned for 7 km walked.

Go_Mizzou99

karenrich77 wrote: »

Hi all,
I do not use the MFP exercise part as it grossly overestimates as we all know, without a heart rate monitor, should I just divvie down the middle and record around 480?

lol - from my perspective I have always thought that MFP underestimates. My HRM proves that. I guess MFPs one-size-fits-all approach is better than nothing.

To answer your question, I have found a lot of good equations on Livestrong.com. They take into account gender, age, weight, height, etc.

Good luck!

brianpperkins

HRMs are just as likely to be wrong as the databases ... so much for proof either way. Science matters.

indianwin2001

brianpperkins wrote: »

HRMs are just as likely to be wrong as the databases ... so much for proof either way. Science matters.

Uh-no--HRM's are pretty accurate

SkyeFyr

I don't think the vivofit takes into account that you're doing all that walking at once - it probably considers it to be little bursts, which would burn less calories because you wouldn't be getting and keeping your heartrate up for an extended period that way. Since you have the vivofit, why not get the HRM for it? I have it and love it - and you would have a more accurate idea of what you're burning.

xsmilexforxmex

I personally always trust the lower burn.

brianpperkins

indianwin2001 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

HRMs are just as likely to be wrong as the databases ... so much for proof either way. Science matters.

Uh-no--HRM's are pretty accurate

Read ... learn ....

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/773451

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

indianwin2001

read Heart rate training By Roy Benson (a book on amazon)--learn--by the way,open your diary so I can see how "science" (which you talk about in every post) works. My diary is open--read it and learn

HRM's are more than a calorie counter---its a TRAINING tool

indianwin2001

xsmilexforxmex wrote: »

I personally always trust the lower burn.

^THIS

brianpperkins

indianwin2001 wrote: »

read Heart rate training By Roy Benson (a book on amazon)--learn--by the way,open your diary so I can see how "science" (which you talk about in every post) works. My diary is open--read it and learn

HRM's are more than a calorie counter---its a TRAINING tool

Perhaps you should read the book you hype. It talks about using HR data for training, not calorie calculation ... and it is focused athletes.

A quick glance at your diary shows a lot of walking ... an activity that HRMs are not useful for accurate caloric estimation. The caloric burns listed from your runs might be accurate if you weigh over 450 pounds ... or do you like double counting by reporting gross rather than net calories from exercise.

What I've learned looking at your diary reinforces what your posts illustrate. Inaccuracies and fallacies.

indianwin2001

brianpperkins wrote: »

indianwin2001 wrote: »

read Heart rate training By Roy Benson (a book on amazon)--learn--by the way,open your diary so I can see how "science" (which you talk about in every post) works. My diary is open--read it and learn

HRM's are more than a calorie counter---its a TRAINING tool

Perhaps you should read the book you hype. It talks about using HR data for training, not calorie calculation ... and it is focused athletes.

A quick glance at your diary shows a lot of walking ... an activity that HRMs are not useful for accurate caloric estimation. The caloric burns listed from your runs might be accurate if you weigh over 450 pounds ... or do you like double counting by reporting gross rather than net calories from exercise.

What I've learned looking at your diary reinforces what your posts illustrate. Inaccuracies and fallacies.

I'm in maintenance. I lost my 20 pounds and I am good.I don't even include my exercise in my calorie count if you look at my diary so I guess I am not double-counting HUH? I am 62 years old and my primary exercise is lifting-I lift heavy-I walk for cardio because I have trouble running. However YOU have no credibility with me because of your constant negative responses to people who are asking for help.Again,open your diary like mine is open and post a picture of yourself so I can "see" who I am talking to. Once again with me,you have NO CREDIBILITY. I have been in the gym for over 33 years and my experience will trump your SCIENCE--End of rant--Go ahead and flag me people

brianpperkins

I'm glad I have "no credibility" in the eyes of a person who thinks their experience trumps science. Continue to be wrong ... you admit to decades of it. I'd be ashamed of that, but, I have pride and a desire to better myself both physically and mentally.

indianwin2001

Good luck with that--You have pride and a desire to get better but your comments are always negative---- I'm done --No need to reply back

brianpperkins

HRMs are inaccurate for calculating caloric burn for walking. The lower end ones that do not accept VO2 data are inaccurate for steady state. All of them are inaccurate for calculating caloric burn from yoga, lifting, or all day wear. It's all based on the very simple fact that the caloric estimates are based on formulae that depend on comparing measured HR to exertion levels and oxygen uptake. Those relationships are not tested or established for most activities, and those activities where there are relationships ... the HR component is tenuous without a lot of proper settings to include an accurate max HR, VO2 ... not the 220-age and generic entries. Most then report gross, not net calories, requiring more math to account for the included RMR to avoid double counting of calories.

brianpperkins

Advocating the wrong tool for the job isn't being positive ... it's giving bad advice.

indianwin2001

brianpperkins wrote: »

HRMs are inaccurate for calculating caloric burn for walking. The lower end ones that do not accept VO2 data are inaccurate for steady state. All of them are inaccurate for calculating caloric burn from yoga, lifting, or all day wear. It's all based on the very simple fact that the caloric estimates are based on formulae that depend on comparing measured HR to exertion levels and oxygen uptake. Those relationships are not tested or established for most activities, and those activities where there are relationships ... the HR component is tenuous without a lot of proper settings to include an accurate max HR, VO2 ... not the 220-age and generic entries. Most then report gross, not net calories, requiring more math to account for the included RMR to avoid double counting of calories.

Did you read my post--I DON'T INCLUDE EXERCISE CALORIES IN MY LOG-I USE TDEE AND PUT 1 CAL IN SO I KNOW WHETHER I LIFTED THAT DAY--YOUR POINT IS MEANINGLESS TO ME but you use nice big words

karenrich77

Here's a thought, how about instead of arguing... get off the thread lol!

You're gonna be burning a lot of calories boxing at each other with your words

I kinda regret asking an innocent question now, thanks to those who answered without bitchin at each other, appreciate is xx

indianwin2001

karenrich77 wrote: »

Here's a thought, how about instead of arguing... get off the thread lol!

You're gonna be burning a lot of calories boxing at each other with your words

I kinda regret asking an innocent question now, thanks to those who answered without bitchin at each other, appreciate is xx

Sorry

Lasmartchika

brianpperkins wrote: »

indianwin2001 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

HRMs are just as likely to be wrong as the databases ... so much for proof either way. Science matters.

Uh-no--HRM's are pretty accurate

Read ... learn ....

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/773451

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

Thank you for this.

brianpperkins

indianwin2001 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

HRMs are inaccurate for calculating caloric burn for walking. The lower end ones that do not accept VO2 data are inaccurate for steady state. All of them are inaccurate for calculating caloric burn from yoga, lifting, or all day wear. It's all based on the very simple fact that the caloric estimates are based on formulae that depend on comparing measured HR to exertion levels and oxygen uptake. Those relationships are not tested or established for most activities, and those activities where there are relationships ... the HR component is tenuous without a lot of proper settings to include an accurate max HR, VO2 ... not the 220-age and generic entries. Most then report gross, not net calories, requiring more math to account for the included RMR to avoid double counting of calories.

Did you read my post--I DON'T INCLUDE EXERCISE CALORIES IN MY LOG-I USE TDEE AND PUT 1 CAL IN SO I KNOW WHETHER I LIFTED THAT DAY--YOUR POINT IS MEANINGLESS TO ME but you use nice big words

First, you said you were done .. which was apparently a falsehood. Second, the post you just quoted was a general statement which is why I didn't quote or address you by name. Third, you didn't start entering one calorie for all of your exercise until Monday of this week ... prior to then, you recorded your calories.

You logged this on Sunday, Nov 16:

Strength training (weight lifting, weight training) 150 60
Running (jogging), 5 mph (12 min mile) 308 45
Garmin Connect calorie adjustment 154 1
TOTALS: 612

It isn't even a challenge discrediting you. Your own diary counters your all caps ranting.

brianpperkins

Lasmartchika wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

indianwin2001 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

HRMs are just as likely to be wrong as the databases ... so much for proof either way. Science matters.

Uh-no--HRM's are pretty accurate

Read ... learn ....

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/773451

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

Thank you for this.

No problem. No HRMs measure caloric burn. Some estimate your burn better than others, but all have inaccuracies. For walking and running, the formula from Runners World linked earlier in this thread is a decent start point for net calories burned.

MeanderingMammal

indianwin2001 wrote: »

HRM's are more than a calorie counter---its a TRAINING tool

The point is more that an HRM is a training tool that the marketeers have managed to convince people can give an accurate calorie expenditure estimation.

Marketing filth, third up against the wall come the time of the glorious revolution...

justalittlecrazy

Using the Runner's World formula, I come up with about 387 calories for 7 km walked and 446 for 8km walked. So a bit higher than the Vivofit but much lower than MFP.